What’s Up With That?

The minute a small cabal hijacked climate for a political agenda it determined that setting the record straight required political answers. Naomi Klein admitted it wasn’t about the science directly. That fighting climate change was necessary to combat capitalism. This was the objective all along and expressed in 1993 when Senator Wirth admitted,

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …”

The “right thing” is achieving Maurice Strong’s objective of getting rid of the industrialized nations.

Too many skeptics continue to think that scientific points are going to change the public understanding. Most of the public don’t understand, but, more important, don’t want to understand. I doubt the 75% who failed the Yale Education Climate Change test lost any sleep. Polls, such as those of the Pew Center and overall analysis of trends indicate global warming or climate change are not a concern for most people. I suspect they don’t care because they don’t understand or want to understand. They also know about the unreliability of weather forecasts, and that is all the science they need.

One Pew poll confirms that the public believes global warming is a political issue. Because of this, politicians and environmentalists with political agendas continue to control the story. James Delingpole puts the amount of money wasted because of this control at $4 billion a day.

Because science is ideally amoral and apolitical most scientists avoid politics, which results in a failure to provide necessary information to open-minded politicians and media. They need this to counter the pseudo-science of the IPCC proponents. They knew what to do from the start. Stephen Schneider set it out succinctly in Discover magazine a year after Hansen appeared before Wirth’s Senate committee and put the entire issue into the political realm.

“On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, -which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.

To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

If this sounds familiar today, it is because it summarizes the words in the recent Encyclical of Pope Francis. Schneider is wrong. There is no decision about right and wrong, which is why the Pope’s connection with climate deceivers contradicts his central role as upholder of truth and is so deeply troubling. It is the rationale Naomi Klein and others use, which is why they brought her on board. It is basic Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals); the end justifies the means.

I spoke about the need to counter the false science from a political and social perspective, in my presentation at the First Heartland Conference in New York ten years ago. I pointed out that Gore’s movie was a brilliant piece of propaganda. A view supported by Justice Burton the UK judge who ruled on its use in the classroom.

It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political.

Justice Burton recommended teachers provide balance by also showing The Great Global Warming Swindle. I proudly advised producer Martin Durkin and appeared in the movie. I also warned him that the US media would not run it, as proved the case, although it is now generally available. The problem is that only a small percentage of people watch documentaries on television. Gore bypassed that by using Hollywood to make the movie but also to market it through all their traditional venues. They knew how to achieve Schneider’s goal of getting “broad-based support” and “capturing the public’s imagination.”

Skeptics have, for a variety of reasons, avoided the “Hollywood” approach. It is a major error. We need to realize that tactics are tactics, and that the adage that you “fight fire with fire” is true. The first thing to do in any strategy is define the problem and the second is to determine the target, and thirdly, use tactics appropriate to the situation.

The problem is a failure to explain climate science and its abuse in a way a majority can understand. The following points are gleaned from my experience with media interviews, school visits, questions after a presentation, and questions via email. They represent the issues I confront every day. They are the real challenges anybody trying to offset the misinformation about climate and climate change must consider. They are the political dynamics that influence how you help people understand and deal with science issues.

1. People can’t believe a small group of people could mislead the world. Nowadays, the explosion of conspiracy theories because of the Internet, make the idea even more remote and unpalatable. They need to heed world-renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead’s observation.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

This comment implies that “thoughtful” and “committed” are pursuing positive changes. History indicates they are never positive since power centralizes and corrupts, -and people lose freedoms.

2. People can’t believe scientists would distort, manipulate, or do anything other than proper science. They accept the view that science and scientists are amoral and apolitical. As Mary McCarthy said,

“In science, all facts, no matter how trivial or banal, enjoy democratic equality.”

This is reinforced by the practice of most scientists to avoid politics. The public assumes the silence [of the “scientific community] is a tacit agreement with what is in the media about global warming.

3. It is mostly the politicians who talk about the 97% manufactured consensus. The public asks (as happened to me twice on radio this week),

“How come thousands of scientists believe there is global warming and climate change?”

The simple answer is, very few are familiar with the science. They, like most of the public, assume other scientists would not distort, manipulate, or do anything other than proper science. When scientists find out, they are shocked as exemplified in Klaus-Eckert Puls comment.

Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.

IPCC proponents promoted and perpetuated this deception through science societies as I explained.

A particularly egregious exploitation was carried out through science societies and professional scientific groups. They were given the climate science of the IPCC and urged to support it on behalf of their members. Certainly a few were part of the exploitation, but a majority, including most of the members simply assumed that the rigorous methods of research and publication in their science were used.Lord May of the UK Royal Society was influential in the manipulation of public perception through national scientific societies. They persuaded other national societies to become involved by making public statements. The Russian Academy of Science, under its President Yuri Israel, refused to participate.

4. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Never in the history of mankind have so many been deceived by so few, with so few facts.” The more you try to counteract what the public knows using scientific facts, the more you lose the battle. If you use scientific facts you must couch them in terms and analogies everybody understands.

I know this from 25 years of teaching a compulsory science credit course for Arts students. The abilities and techniques I developed there of explaining climate in ways the public understands made me a double threat to IPCC proponents because I was also qualified.

5. Most people don’t know what is “normal” or “natural” in nature. This made it easy to imply or infer that they were abnormal or unnatural. It works well with the modern practice of “sound bites” in which information is presented without context.
Climate change is innately historical and demands context. There are two basic options to counter the problem.
Publish the context for each story as soon as possible after it appears. Publish stories of true facts that are outside of people’s comprehension using analogies.
For example, alarmists add human scale to stories with analogies. One year they reported Arctic sea ice melted more than the previous year by an area the size of Texas . Texas is 695,662 km2, which is approximately 4.6% of the total Arctic ice of 15 million km2. The change is within the natural annual variability, but Texas is big so it must be a problem.

6. We tell people CO2 isn’t causing the warming but fail to explain why. This is for people who don’t know what a greenhouse gas is or that water vapor is far more important.

We then fail to explain what is the most likely cause. As politicians learn to their peril, you can’t just be against something.

Today they push the global warming claims with increasing deception because the 21st Paris Conference of the Parties on climate is scheduled for 7-8 December 2015. They consider it imperative to pass a Kyoto type set of policies. Ironically, one thing that diminishes their chances is continued economic decline, the very objective of Wirth, Klein and the gang. It is ironic because politicians will reset their priorities to promote development, growth, and job creation because they don’t want angry voters. What they will get is angry global warming activists with a political agenda.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

136 comments:

Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.

Just one, but hey, do not take my word for it, search Maurice Strong and see the rest of the antics he has been up to as reported by others. He is a humongous hypocrite.

Regards
Climate Heretic
[1] Maurice Strong as quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine

Maurice Strong is basically the instigator of this entire process. Without him, you’d not have the question to ask, and we likely would not be posting in WUWT.

Scott

Read (Google)about the Club of Rome, Agenda 21 and the real politics behind “sustainability”. You will then have educated yourself to the issue and see where Maurice Strong is the mentor of Naomi Oriskies…..

Strong did not have to be the initiator of many of the ideas, but he was clearly instrumental in pushing the global agenda through his UN influence. Given the source of his personal wealth (a lot of fossil fuel companies) and the later food-for-oil bribery scandal, I think he’s earned his fair share of bile.

I think of Strong and this springs to mind: “the finest trick of the devil is to persuade you that he does not exist.” To dismisss the man as inconsequential is the first big mistake. I don’t think he is an eco-hippie. I doubt he wears a psychedelic kaftan and drives around in a Kombi van… neither do I think he is Ernst Stavro Blofeld, but he is much closer to the latter than the former, no?

imoira

August 23, 2015

Maurice Strong is the left-hand man to what Dr. Ball describes as the small cabal that hijacked climate for a political agenda. Strong’s career wove its way between government employment at a senior level, employment in private industry and ownership of companies, including oil. He is a pal of both those who direct the UN towards global governance from their global money power positions and of their minions, including Secretaries-General, past and present. His real strength is his network, each web of which it was necessary to crawl along or spin in order to create a sense of climate catastrophe and the ensuing world chaos.

Strong is a salesman and a tactician. I recently read his book “Where on Earth Are we Going?” The title seemed to me to eerily echo Lenin’s, “What is To Be Done?”
It was not an imagined echo as Strong himself admits in the book. In it, although he also admits that somebody else actually wrote the book, he shows just how accomplished both he and his writer are at disinformation and at using socialist language to convince readers to give up their freedom for the sake of saving Earth.
And for what are we to save Earth? He doesn’t say it outright but we are to save Earth for those who crave absolute control over it.

His chapter by chapter bibliography includes UN papers, books and articles by environmental lefty luminaries, his own presentations and Thomas Malthus. My biggest chuckle, and the only one I got from reading the propaganda, came of seeing Rachel Carson referenced as an authority several times.

The book was published in 2001. In his omniscience, Strong presents a vision of 2031. That it is actually the result of a plan is clear when one reads of the mass migrations and other world turbulence, including economic catastrophe, that he describes. All of that catastrophe is, according to him, because of man-made climate change. When Strong and his pals talk of climate change, they are really talking about political, economic, moral and societal revolution intended to result in a new world order.

When Dr. Ball ‘obsesses’ over Maurice Strong, he is doing us a favor. We ought to listen what Strong has said. His prognostications are best read as threats. He and the cabal intended to destroy the industrialized world and they are well on their way to accomplishing that.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About arnash

“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason.
"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their
behalf.” - George Orwell
“Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

One Response to Realities Of Climate Change, Politics And Public Knowledge

Leif,
Strong is [he’s still alive hiding in Peking from an international arrest warrant] a Canadian beet red Prairie Socalist who was Pearson and Trudeau’s “eminence grise” at the UN. He’s one of the UNEP and IPCC’s godfathers and was caught on open microphone at the 1992 Rio Earth Conference advocating the dismantling of western advanced industrial societies as a the way of saving the planet.
That very statement tells us jus about everything we need to know about the motives of the climate establishment and serves nicely to situate the views of say a Naomi Klein and the Pope -both virulently anti-progress and anti-capitalism.

That’s all I we need to understand – something by the way I did some 15 years ago when I started to dig into the CAGW story, because we are not discussing whether or not the sun or man has anything to do with the earth’s climate but are dealing with extremely well funded and manipulative on-message groups whose aim is to destroy our economies.

If you have trouble accepting that reality, take a closer look at what is unfolding in Germany where the Greens are found in key positions throughout the political and social fabric putting in place disastrous policies such as the much touted “energiewende” and are in the process of achieving precisely what Maurice Strong was advocating.

That’s not an obsession but a reality check.
~~~~~~~~~~~
TomRude August 23, 2015

“Putting a person’s face on an attack on an -ism is a clever trick to draw out the haters.”
Indeed, no accused, no trial… If that is not another better trick, what is.
It feels safer to rather hide behind ALL scientists, politicians, bureaucrats and now even religious figures who promote the doomsday cult. One’s individual responsibility is thus diluted: “everyone agreed, we all thought we were right” etc… would then become the common defense and excuse. Identifying those who contributed to engineer the whole affair makes sunny boy uncomfortable.
Svalgaard may not have read Mr. Strong recent prose, his non coincidental interventions in major newspapers at the side of Rockefeller Brothers funded propagandists, in Canada and in the US. Sure Strong did not invent world domination yet he was and still is a willing tool just like Soros plays with lives. Their old age does not diminish their toxicity.

tetris
August 24, 2015 at 6:23 am

Leif,
Give over, you’re arguing the unarguable. When a man who is at the heart of the UN climate machinery, having help put it in place, states that in order to save the planet we have to dismantle the advanced industrial economies, you need to take that at face value. When an armed man tells you he’s going to kill you, best to take him at his word and act accordingly.

Strong, using the UN machinery, enabled the emergence of a myriad of “green” NGOs and political parties from the ruins of socialism after 1989. The dates of the fall of the Wall and the emergence of climate as a central political issue is not a coincidence -only the truly naïve still don’t want to get that. Climate has been the war horse of the various factions at the extreme Left ever since the early 1990s.

And in Germany these various groupings are in the process of achieving exactly what Strong had in mind: increasingly, all major German manufacturers are moving their operations to North America where energy costs are 30% of those in Europe -even Airbus has put its new factory in NC. We are witnessing before our eyes the de-industrialization of Europe’s most important economy, with the disappearance of now well over 100,000 well paying jobs and as Germany goes so goes the rest of the Eurozone. Make no mistake about it.

Your are superbly naïve to want to hold up Strong as some insignificant bit player: he and his ilk are winning the war they set in motion. If you still have doubts, think about how come Obama’s Science advisor is Paul Ehrlich’s No 2, which goes a long way to explaining the dangerous talk coming from the POTUS. All part of the movement enabled by Strong and his ilk over the past 25 years.